First, the good news: Californians want a quality education system from top to bottom:
Nearly all Californians across regional, political, and demographic groups say that higher education is very or somewhat important to the state's future economic vitality and quality of life. Latinos (80%) and blacks (74%) are the most likely to say it is very important. (PPIC
And they think we have a pretty good one now:
Californians give high grades to all three branches of the higher education system: community college (51% good, 15% excellent), California State University (52% good, 10% excellent), University of California (50% good, 15% excellent).(PPIC
Unsurprisingly, cost is labeled as the top concern, with a huge majority (84%) saying it's a problem. And large majorities favor specific programs to make education cheaper, such as a sliding scale and work-study programs. Furthermore, it seems that there is a lack of education about financial aid opportunities, especially in where it's needed most, families with low household incomes.
The bad news: While there is clearly a lot of work to be done, but apparently higher education is a bit lower down the line, behind K-12 education and human services, anyway. It's true that K-12 needs a lot of attention, we must not grow complacent about higher ed. The more concerning part is something more global: the budget and taxes. Namely, we're still a little unsure about the whole raising. It's classic, "And a Pony" thinking.
Today, most Californians (83%) are concerned that the budget crisis will lead to significant cuts in funding for higher education, and more than half (54%) say spending for public colleges and universities should be a high or very high priority. Yet more than half (52%) are unwilling to pay higher taxes or to increase student fees (62%) in order to avoid such cuts. However, about half (53%) favor spending more state government money to avoid increasing tuition and fees - even if it means less money for other state programs.
Part of the discrepancy has to be in the way you ask these questions. Because you can't really, over the phone, lay out the entirety of the budget system and ask people where the money should go. So instead we get a series of questions that goes something like this: Do you want to spend more money for a strong higher ed system? Yes. Do you want to spend more money on better K-12 education? Yes. Do you want to pay taxes for them? No.
Well, I simplify somewhat, but nonetheless this is tough to poll. So, I think the "And A Pony" thinking is somewhat overblown, but not entirely mythical. It certainly exists, but other recent polling shows that Californians are now willing to pay increased taxes. Back in September, Field reported (PDF) that over 60% of Californians favored some sort of tax increases to help balance the budget.
There is a will, we just need to make sure that everybody up and down the line understands that. As Jean Ross & the Budget Project point out in a new report (PDF), now is exactly the right time to invest in the future. We shouldn't be cutting back, but investing so that California will be the first to recover.
I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other issues in California politics
In 1960 the state of California made a promise. All students who met eligibility requirements would be given a place in the state's higher education system, and that education would be provided free of charge (although students would be responsible for room and board and books, they were not to be charged for the cost of instruction). Sure, that place might be at a UC, or a CSU, but under Governor Pat Brown both Republicans and Democrats agreed that for the good of the state, its economy, and its future, affordable higher education had to be guaranteed.
That was the essence of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and it perhaps more than any other project of the Pat Brown era was responsible for catapulting California to global economic leadership, creating broadly shared prosperity, and making this state a better place to live. Without it we would be much worse off than we are today.
The Master Plan has been betrayed before, starting with Governor Ronald Reagan's 1967 student fee hikes. Over the decades the promise of free college has eroded, but at least those who met the eligibility requirements could get a place. In recent years that opportunity became more remote and more dependent on debt, but at least it was there.
Under Arnold Schwarzenegger the slow but steady decline of California higher education has dramatically accelerated. Arnold has shown nothing but contempt for higher ed and no interest whatsoever in upholding the promises of the Master Plan or securing a prosperous future for all Californians.
So it comes as no surprise that he is again targeting higher ed for massive cuts, and cuts that are leading the Cal State system to turn away eligible freshmen for the first time ever:
Under one of the cost-cutting proposals, the CSU system may turn away eligible freshmen for the first time in its history. If the proposal from Chancellor Charles Reed is enacted, schools will give priority to freshmen in their "service area," meaning CSUMB would first admit Monterey County residents. Students from outside the county would be put on a waiting list.
Institutions of higher education statewide stand to face a staggering $464.1 million in combined cuts under the governor's plan to plug an $11 billion drop in state revenue projections.
During a recession, you want students to attend college. Regardless of age, students get education and job training that will help them grow the economy upon graduation. It is a tried and true form of economic stimulus. Arnold's cuts are going to forestall this:
The community college system, which would be hardest hit by the cuts, would lose about 10 percent of its state funding under the governor's plan....
"When unemployment goes up, enrollment at community colleges goes up," Pyer said. "So we'll have more students, and we won't get money for that."
Tough economic times also force some four-year students to drop down to two-year institutions, Pyer said.
The proposed budget cuts are not the only fiscal adjustment to education bouncing around Sacramento. The state Legislative Analyst's Office has proposed fee increases that would raise community college tuition by 50 percent by fall 2009...
"It's the community college's feeling that it's the worst time to raise fees when the economy is in a slump," said Monterey Peninsula College spokesman Rich Montori.
Disclosure: I teach part-time at MPC but do not anticipate being affected by any of these cuts.
Community college cuts are especially pernicious. These schools are the primary location where working-class and lower middle-class Californians get a chance at upward mobility. Even small fee increases can put college and work skills further out of reach, especially since most of these students already work full-time.
As this budget crisis unfolds it is becoming clear to everyone that what is at stake is more than just a fiscal plan for the state government. Our very future is at risk here. I don't know how to put it more clearly. If these cuts continue, if this overall situation is not reversed, California will simply not be sustainable for most of its residents. The prosperity of the 20th century will have given way to the aristocracy and inequality of the 21st.
Are we going to let the Yacht Party get away with it?
When I was an undergrad at Berkeley in the late '90s we paid around $4400 in "student fees." It was higher than it should have been given the cost of living at the time, but the state of California had held UC costs at a fixed level from 1995 to 2001.
Of course, during the 1960s the state and the UC system actually held to the promises of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which included a promise to never charge students for the cost of instruction. In the 1960s when state treasurer Bill Lockyer attended UC Berkeley his total cost - for all 4 years - would have been $880. Figuring inflation and that's $5,808 in 2007 dollars.
UC tuition will rise $490 to $7,126 plus campus fees, which average $881 this year. The tuition would reach $8,180 if raised to the 10 percent total.
Hume said students at UC's nine undergraduate campuses can expect a more difficult time registering for some classes, larger class sizes, and cuts in student services.
"We will be less efficient. They will take longer to graduate. They will not be able to get classes. They will not be able to get their majors," Hume said.
The CSU is following suit with a 10% increase of its own:
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said during the same editorial board meeting that he is recommending that the CSU Board of Trustees approve a 10 percent tuition increase next week but that he will not go back for more later in the year. Fees at CSU will rise by $276 to $3,048 plus campus fees, which were an average of $749 per student this year.
These increases are going to make it even more difficult for qualified Californians to attend college, improve their earning power, and strengthen the state economy. With the credit crunch reducing the availability of student loans these increases leave me wondering whether this isn't a sly way to drive students away - applications and freshman classes have been soaring year after year.
It's also a further step in the privatization of our higher education system. With decreasing public support the onus is now on students to self-finance their education, which is in direct contravention to the principles of the UC and CSU systems as laid out in the 1960 Master Plan. If California is to have an economic future in the 21st century - if we are to keep pace with European and Asian economies - we need trained and skilled Californians able to handle the tasks of a 21st century civilization. Instead the state of California is abandoning that mission - for the sake of preserving the 20th century, we are going to sacrifice the 21st.
Over 2,000 students from UC, CSU, and community colleges gathered today for a protest march from Raley Field in West Sac to the State Capitol to denounce Arnold's planned higher ed cuts, and 200 more gathered at Arnold's LA office. The protest is getting big coverage - it's the featured article at SFGate this evening:
"Kick us out, we will vote you out," the crowd in Sacramento chanted as they walked along a bridge crossing Highway 99, through downtown and onto the Capital steps. The line of students, which included hundreds from the Bay Area, stretched six blocks, and dozens of motorists honked in support as they drove by.
The fears, voiced again and again, where that if Schwarzenegger's proposed funding cuts go through, students will end up paying more to attend, while reduced services and a narrower selection of classes....
One student from San Jose State, 24-year-old Joel Bridgeman, said raising the money for college was so tough that he was homeless - couch surfing - for about a year as he went to school.
"Most of the people who work in this building probably either went to CSU, UC or (community college), but as the next generation comes up they are looking for the easy solution," he said. "They are looking for what is going to get them re-elected. They say our voice doesn't matter, but I have a message for them... we are here to demand our chance."
I especially liked that framing - it's worth noting that millions of Californians owe their current wealth and prosperity to investments in higher ed made in earlier decades. Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, whose office helped organize the march, mentioned that both Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson increased taxes to prevent destructive education cuts.
Aaron McLear, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said higher education continues to be high priority for the governor, but considering the scope of the budget deficit, it would be unfair to cut certain items in the state budget while leaving others untouched.
"The governor is as frustrated as the students are that he has to make these cuts. He doesn't want to make these cuts," McLear said.
Students weren't buying it.
And they're right to not buy it, because it's a lie. Arnold doesn't have to make these cuts at all. If he hadn't cut the VLF and insisted on borrowing our way out of the last big deficit we'd have a much smaller hole now. And if he supported closing the tax loopholes he could potentially raise $12 billion, which would prevent budget cuts that would destroy California's economic competitiveness.
Organizers of the protest tell me this is just the beginning of activism on the budget. This is the fight of this generation's lives, and the longer the Yacht Party refuses to accept reality and the need to find new revenues, the more activism we're going to be seeing from young Californians.
California higher education has not been having a good decade. When Arnold first took office a series of major cuts were made to the UC, CSU, and community college budgets. In 2004 a compact was agreed to between the UC and CSU leaders and Arnold, guaranteeing a stable, if low, level of funding. That agreement has been heavily criticized for having accepted a lower standard of state support - and that criticism looks to be merited, as Arnold now proposes to violate that agreement with his 10% cut of higher ed funding.
As a new study by the Campaign for College Opportunity shows, the proposed cuts would have the effect of severely curtailing enrollment by as much as 27,000 over the next two years, which is the size of an average UC or CSU undergraduate campus enrollment. And a study by the UC Academic Senate found that "to maintain educational quality" student fees would have to rise from $7,500 to $10,500 - a staggering increase from an already high level.
"The Schwarzenegger revision accelerates the redefinition of the University of California away from a public university and toward a 'public-private partnership,' " the UC study said. "The university becomes dependent on high student fees for delivering its core educational mission. . . . The university becomes quasi-private or poor -- or perhaps both at once."
UC has been suffering for years from what the Academic Senate study called a "hollowing out" because of lack of money. "From a distance, all appears normal; once one goes inside, the damage is clear," it said. Leaky roofs go unrepaired; valuable faculty leave for better-paying universities...
The problem of "faculty brain drain" from public to private institutions is a serious one across the country but is hitting UC and CSU the hardest, as their funding has been the most dramatically impacted.
The study and the cuts were the subject of an article in today's LA Times which contained some quotes from higher ed leaders about the impact of these cuts:
Diane Woodruff, chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said the governor's proposed cut would mean those campuses would not be able to provide classes for more than 50,000 students. An additional 18,500 would not receive financial aid.
The cutbacks would most affect low-income, first-generation and nonwhite students, who generally depend more on university services, she said...
"By 2025. if we continue on this same course of cumulative budget cuts on a cyclical basis, the California workforce will be 3 million short and California will not be competitive," Cal State Chancellor [Charles] Reed said.
In other words, Arnold's proposed 10% cut of higher education would have a crippling effect on California's economy. The student fees increases would squeeze middle-class families even more dramatically, and would be difficult for young students to pay - especially as student loan availability is shrinking due to the credit cruch - even the notorious Sallie Mae claimed "we're at the cusp of peak lending."
But this is sadly part of a larger pattern for Arnold and his Republican allies. Don't let their occasional bickering and infighting fool you - they stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to this state's future. They all agree that our economy and the middle- and working-classes should be sacrificed for the sake of a few wealthy Californians who don't want to pay more taxes. They agree that to save voters $150 a year in vehicle license fees, public education - from kindergarten to undergraduate - should be destroyed.
The article notes that "Despite the dire situation the universities and community colleges find themselves in, education leaders have been reluctant to challenge the governor." It looks like that task is going to fall to the students who, abandoned by their schools' administrators, are launching a statewide protest on Monday, April 21 to oppose these cuts.
The university, averting a showdown over religious freedom, agreed to rehire Kearney-Brown after the office of state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown helped draft a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees to bear arms in the country's defense....
The firing of Kearney-Brown, who also is a graduate student at the campus, brought widespread criticism from faculty members, students, Quakers and civil-liberties advocates. Some faculty members began circulating a petition objecting to it. The United Auto Workers, which represents teaching assistants, pursued a grievance on Kearney-Brown's behalf.
"People were outraged," said Henry Reichman, a Cal State East Bay history professor and chairman of the Academic Senate. "I was very vocal on the campus that this was an outrageous thing."
The ultimate resolution involved Kearney-Brown getting CSUEB to attach a document to her signed oath clarifying that the oath would not require her to take up arms to defend the state or the constitution, in conformance with her Quaker beliefs. Although the university resisted this, Jerry Brown's office produced a document that read:
"You should know that signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence," read the unsigned statement. "This has been confirmed by both the United States Supreme Court . . . and the California attorney general's office."
Although this particular story has a happy ending - and should set a precedent for others whose religious or personal beliefs would be violated by this ridiculous oath - it still raises the question of whether or not this ridiculous anachronism still has any place in California.
It also reminds us of the importance of unions in protecting not just wages and benefits, but civil liberties. Kearney-Brown, like most CSU TAs, is represented by UAW Local 4123. (Note: I was an organizer and steward in UAW Local 4121 at UW.) With her union on her side she had legal and political power, helping her get her job back within days. It also helped that our state Attorney General was willing to step in and defend her civil liberties, as opposed to trying to trample them like some other AGs we know.
Ultimately this reminds us of the importance of coalitions to protect civil liberties. Whether it's a loyalty oath, FISA, or waterboarding, our basic rights must be supported and protected by the public. Once we start abandoning or refusing to defend the rights of others, we will quickly find we are losing our own.
"I don't think it was fair at all," said Kearney-Brown. "All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don't care if I meant it, and it didn't seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn't matter. Nothing."
A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time....
Each time, when asked to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," crossed out "swear," and circled "affirm." All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.
But Cal State East Bay wouldn't, and she was fired on Thursday.
Unless we believe that Quakers are somehow America's biggest threat, this should be seen as a totally ridiculous and anachronistic injustice. The loyalty oath - sometimes called the "Levering Oath" after the Republican legislator who rammed it through the state legislature in 1949-50 - was a particularly pernicious and pointless instance of McCarthyite hysteria. Republican Governor Earl Warren had initially opposed the oath, but when UC President Robert Sproul imposed the oath and fired 31 tenured professors who refused to sign it on grounds of academic freedom, Warren decided to support the oath to secure his 1950 reelection bid.
In short, the oath was created to further the political ambitions of Levering, Warren and Sproul. It did nothing to help California or the nation fight the Cold War, created deep and lasting divisions at UC, and is today seen as a rather silly piece of paper that folks sign as part of the usual fat packet of paper public workers have to sign upon accepting employment.
It's been 59 years since the oath was created and 19 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Must we lose more qualified, dedicated, longtime teachers to this relic of the past? I know California legislators have better things to do, but if any of you politicians who are reading this site - and I know you're out there - want to write a law to repeal this waste of paper, it would be welcome.
The Governor vetoed SB1, legislation which would have allowed students who are children of undocumented immigrants to apply for financial aid and have the same opportunity at contributing to the American dream as their counterparts. These are young men and women who did not make the decision to come to this country, yet represent out best hope to continue as a strong nation by contributing to our economy and our historic diversity. They consider themselves Americans and Californians and wish to use their talents and skills to benefit this country and this state. The Governor said no.
And get this, he blamed it on the high cost of college (yeah, who's responsible for THAT?).
At a time when segments of California public higher education, the Universirt of California and the California State University, are raising fees on all students attending college in order to maintain the quality of education provided, it would not be prudent to place additional strain on the General Fund to accord the new benefit of providing state subsidized financial aid to students without lawful immigration status.
That expense will pay itself back 10 times over in the future. But now the dream of a college education for these students becomes ever more remote. This used to be a different kind of country.
In 1960, the Master Plan for Higher Education in California was adopted, with Democratic Governor Pat Brown having played the key role in brokering the deals that produced the remarkable document. Among its core principles were access - from the guarantees of UC or CSU acceptance for students in the top levels of their high school classes, to community college transfers - as well as affordability with an outright ban on tuition and the expectation that "student fees" would be limited, and used for things such as student activities and dorms. The state would provide the support for instruction.
But ever since Reagan took office in 1967, these promises have been under attack. In a political or especially an economic crisis, state politicians have repeatedly undermined the Master Plan, limiting access by reducing affordability. After a truce in the 1990s, the budget crisis of the 2000s saw another sustained attack on higher ed and the first acknowledged abrogations of the Master Plan's promises. Today, a UC or CSU education is no longer affordable, and reduced state support not only limits access, but is impoverishing those who work in its ranks.
All this is the subject of a fantastic LA Times article this morning titled "Less to Bank on at State Universities: Educators fear a 2004 funding deal has schools sliding toward mediocrity." But the article is about more than just the problems of reduced funding. Instead it outlines how this is a deliberate policy of the Schwarzenegger administration, an effort to privatize California colleges and put them out of the reach of those who have been promised access to them.
The story does not end there. An unstated, but equally important aspect of the piece also shows how this crisis is also the product of a stunning failure of public officials to protect the institutions and historic policies they have been charged with defending. Whether it is the UC Regents, the State Legislature, or the Democratic Party, these officials have done little to nothing to protect one of the most important projects in California history.
Don Perata has called the following proposal "Prop 13 for Community Colleges." It will be appearing on the February ballot
* Guarantees minimum funding for growth
* Guarantees $15 per unit fees that can only rise with the cost of living
* Guarantees a system of independent community college districts
Well, we haven't quite reached that milestone yet, but it is only a matter of time. A very short time.
As the costs for fixing the state's troubled corrections system rocket higher, California is headed for a dubious milestone -- for the first time the state will spend more on incarcerating inmates than on educating students in its public universities. Based on current spending trends, California's prison budget will overtake spending on the state's universities in five years. No other big state in the country spends close to as much on its prisons compared with universities.
***
"California is just off the charts compared with other states in corrections spending," said Michael Jacobson, director of the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, a leading research organization. (SF Chron 5/22/07)
During the Arnold Administration, prison spending has leaped from just under $6B to an expected $10B in the 2007-2008 Budget. That kind of growth would make even a CEO of an Indian software firm jealous.
There are many, many reasons that our prison expenses are so out of line, even when compared to other states. But one reason surely must be ToughOnCrimeTM:
"I'll tell you what, it's clearly not a statement of our priorities," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. "Our policies are hurting the economy of California. This is a disservice to our economy."
Núñez blamed the prison spending on a get-tough-on-crime mentality among politicians that equates more prison spending with safer streets, when that is hardly the case.
First, congratulations to the Speaker for saying this. This should be shouted from rooftops: ToughOnCrimeTM is ruining our prison system, and apparently our budget as well. ToughOnCrimeTM fails us when we try to rehabilitate prisoners, ToughOnCrimeTM fails us on race issues, ToughOnCrimeTM fails us on efficient use of resources. Todd Spitzer, the outspoken OC Assemblyman, can crow all he wants about how Tough he is, but where has the success been for ToughOnCrimeTM?
Today down in sunny Mission Bay along SF's less scenic waterfront (and only a few steps from my gym), Sen. Leland Yee announced his plan for pension reform. Currently UC's pension plan is governed solely by the UC Regents, with no input from workers. WTF?
So, Sen. Yee plans to require joint governance with other higher ed. pension plans. Given that UC's pension has dramatically underperformed, perhaps not a bad idea. Check out the press release over the flip...
Today down in sunny Mission Bay along SF's less scenic waterfront (and only a few steps from my gym), Sen. Leland Yee announced his plan for pension reform. Currently UC's pension plan is governed solely by the UC Regents, with no input from workers. WTF?